BETWEEN THE LINES

2016 election rigged? More so than Watergate

Exclusive: Joseph Farah declares, 'Fraud has been perpetrated on the American people'

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and chief executive officer of WND. He is the author or co-author of 13 books that have sold more than 5 million copies, including his latest, "The Restitution of All Things: Israel, Christians, and the End of the Age." Before launching WND as the first independent online news outlet in 1997, he served as editor in chief of major market dailies including the legendary Sacramento Union.

Yes, the 2016 election has been corrupted. Fraud has been perpetrated on the American people and the rule of law. The multiple scandals – provable now through prima facie evidence – actually make this political year, from primaries through general campaigns, represent something bigger than Watergate!

Do I exaggerate?

You be the judge.

First of all, let me begin by saying I am old enough to thoroughly understand Watergate. It was the political development that inspired me to enter journalism as my profession. I followed it carefully, meticulously, methodically – from the early newspaper reporting to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

I can assure those who were not conscious at that time, those not yet born, that what is taking place in 2016 is indeed bigger and more shocking than this mythical scandal of all American political scandals. The only thing missing is any attempt at justice, prosecution of guilty parties, accountability.

There is no special prosecutor. There isn’t even any national discussion about the possibility of naming one.

There are no House and Senate hearings. Instead, many Republicans are denying there is any widespread or systematic attempt at “rigging” the election.

There are, however, some Woodward and Bernstein upstarts exposing what’s going on. That would be James O’Keefe and his compatriots at Project Veritas.

If James O’Keefe wanted to be rich and famous, author of a bestselling book, seeing himself portrayed on the big screen, all he would have to do is switch his focus and point of view. Unfortunately, for this courageous and intrepid young man, he’s taking on a much bigger and more powerful conspiracy than did Woodward and Bernstein.

O’Keefe is the young man who exposed the “dirty tricks” or “black ops” component of the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee for all to see. Without question, in a just world, he would be the runaway choice for the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.

The trouble is the major media, totally, 100 percent in the pocket of the DNC and Hillary campaign and actually an essential part of the Democrats’ strategy for electoral victory, have no interest in giving O’Keefe’s Project Veritas and its stunning revelations any exposure – none, zip, zilch, nada.

Without question, however, as a Watergate baby, I can tell you what O’Keefe and his intrepid team have exposed is the dark underbelly of fraudulent, corrupt American politics at its worst – meaning business-as-usual Democratic Party politics that puts the biggest political scandal of the 20th century to shame by comparison.

That’s right. I said what O’Keefe uncovered and documented is bigger than Watergate – much bigger. And I say that as a guy who became a journalist because of Watergate.

At the end of the day, Watergate stunned the nation because it demonstrated that the Committee to Re-Elect the President, or CREEP, as it was unfortunately acronymed in 1972, resorted to “dirty tricks” in its efforts on behalf of Richard Nixon. Those responsible for the “dirty tricks” were called “plumbers.” Among other things, they broke into the office of the Democratic National Committee inside the Watergate Hotel.

Thirty-four years after Watergate, we know Nixon was shielded from the plans for the break-ins at the DNC office. Two years later, he was forced to resign for his participation in the cover-up of the black ops perpetrated by his campaign and some of his former staffers. The revelations of the activities in the Washington Post and, later on, nationally televised House and Senate hearings and the work of two special prosecutors led directly to the resignation of the president.

While Hillary Clinton is not the incumbent president in 2016, she is the closest thing possible – Barack Obama’s handpicked successor, his former secretary of state, the candidate he is actively campaigning for, the opponent of a challenger he calls “unfit” for the presidency.

Are the “dirty tricks” of the Hillary campaign, the DNC, the White House and their allied organizations that served as black ops “plumbers” equivalent to the scandals of Watergate?

Even without the benefit of House and Senate hearings, special prosecutors and a press eager to ferret out corruption by one party in a presidential election, what we know about the fraud perpetrated by the Hillary team indeed rivals, in many ways, the seriousness and impact of Watergate.

George McGovern and the Democrats never had a chance to win the presidential election of 1972. The biggest question about Watergate was always “why?” Why did the Nixon campaign resort to dirty tricks in a race that was virtually uncontested – with no serious challenger?

There is no reason to believe the bugging devices planted in the Watergate headquarters of the DNC had any impact on the outcome of the election.

At the end of the day, the Watergate break-in really did amount to a “third-rate burglary.”

By contrast, in 2016, there is overwhelming proof – including dramatic undercover video recordings – of Clinton surrogates boasting about organized voter-fraud campaigns, “dirty tricks” including the successful incitement to violence at her Republican rallies and events, active collusion between Hillary’s “plumbers,” the campaign, the DNC and even the White House, which held daily calls with the rogue operators and meeting with their leader, Robert Creamer – a convicted felon and husband of a sitting Democrat member of Congress from Chicago – an astonishing 342 times and with Obama himself 47 times.

A key source in O’Keefe’s videos, Scott Foval, the national field director of Americans United for Change, was fired after the videos were released, and Democracy Partners head Robert Creamer resigned in a bid to deflate the scandal.

Foval says on the video recording: “It’s a very easy thing for Republicans to say, ‘Well, they’re busing people in.’ … We’ve been busing people in to deal with you f—–‘ a——- for 50 years, and we’re not going to stop now. We’re just going to find a different way to do it.”

For instance, Foval says, personal vehicles for each voter arouse less suspicion than busing in a large number of people from out of state. Foval also discusses planting people at rallies for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Those chosen are sent to incite violence and are even given scripts and training.

Creamer – who is married to Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., is shown on video being asked about circumventing voter registration laws for Hispanics.

Interestingly, a major campaign theme for Hillary Clinton is doing away with all voter identification requirements, which, she suggests, “suppress” the vote.

Ironically, there is even a direct tie-in between Watergate and Watergate 2, which I hereby dub “Hillarygate.” That historical and ironic link would be Hillary Clinton herself.

Few remember, or care to remember, that Hillary Clinton played a significant role in the Watergate scandal. Her role was scandalous itself.

Hillary Clinton, as it turns out, was one of the staff investigators of the House Committee preparing an impeachment case against Richard Nixon, but she was fired by her boss, lifetime Democrat Jerry Zeifman, general counsel and chief of staff, for being a “liar” and “an unethical, dishonest lawyer.” He said Clinton was collaborating with allies of the Kennedys to block revelations of Kennedy-administration activities that made Watergate “look like a day at the beach.” In addition, he said, a brief Hillary wrote for the committee was so fraudulent and ridiculous, she would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Hillary’s brief argued Nixon did not have the right to counsel in an impeachment case because of lack of precedent.

To make that case, Clinton deliberately ignored the then-recent impeachment case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who was, indeed, allowed to have a lawyer during the impeachment attempt against him in 1970. Zeifman claims Clinton bolstered her fraudulent brief by removing all of the Douglas case files from public access and hiding them in her office, enabling her to argue as if the case never existed.

Not much has changed in the character of Hillary Clinton since then. In fact, her propensity to lie, cheat and steal set the stage of Hillarygate in 2016.